Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized for You
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Mark your calendars - All GMAT Club Tests are free and open November 22nd to celebrate Thanksgiving Day! Access will be available from 0:01 AM to 11:59 PM, Pacific Time (USA)
A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d
[#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Jul 2018, 02:42
1
8
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
95% (hard)
Question Stats:
32% (01:41) correct 68% (01:47) wrong based on 287 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.
Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?
(A)It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence.
(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.
(C)Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational.
(D)The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence.
(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event.
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d
[#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Jul 2018, 02:53
Bunuel wrote:
A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.
Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?
(A)It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence.
(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.
(C)Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational.
(D)The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence.
(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event.
IMO A is right.
The author concluded that violence was the result of freakish weather conditions using the above mentioned series of suppositions, without any evidence. Hence A is most debatable option.
_________________
Only those who risk going too far, can possibly find out how far one can go
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d
[#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Jul 2018, 03:43
1
It is given that that it is probable,but nothing is mentioned about what happened actually.Highlighed the portion that maybe useful to arrive at D.
Bunuel wrote:
A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.
Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?
(A)It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence.
(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.
(C)Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational.
(D)The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence.
(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event.
_________________
Thanks, Ankit Target Score:730+ If the post was useful,please send the kudos
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d
[#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Jul 2018, 06:09
Bunuel wrote:
A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.
Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?
(A)It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence.
(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.
(C)Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational.
(D)The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence.
(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event.
Imo D
The the conclusion is based upon consequences of some probable event. So to undermine the this argument we have to show that the probable event did not occur or some other event occurred. D questions that the there not certainty that such an even might have occurred and thus this choice undermine the contention.
_________________
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d
[#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Jul 2018, 11:36
Bunuel wrote:
A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.
Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?
(A)It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence.
(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.
(C)Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational.
(D)The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence.
(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event.
In my opinion B , A says contemporary( present time) evidence ...doesn't make much sense here
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d
[#permalink]
Show Tags
25 Jul 2018, 02:03
IMO D.
The author says that the consumption of the infected grain CAN cause ergotism, but did it really cause and if it did then what proportion of the population was effected-no information is given on these points. Hence, in the absence of the said information, one can only conclude that the consumption of the infected grain MIGHT have been the reason for violence.
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Jul 2018, 19:42
Please help me understand difference b/w options A and D?
(A)Author's assumption is based on "plausible suppositions" rather than "contemporary evidence". (D)The author assumption makes no distinction between "probable occurrence" and "actual occurrence". How is "not giving actual occurrence" diff. from "not having actual evidence"??
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 2.8
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Jul 2018, 07:52
Aditi23 wrote:
Please help me understand difference b/w options A and D?
(A)Author's assumption is based on "plausible suppositions" rather than "contemporary evidence". (D)The author assumption makes no distinction between "probable occurrence" and "actual occurrence". How is "not giving actual occurrence" diff. from "not having actual evidence"??
If you see (A) says the assumption should be made on contemporary evidence i.e., evidence from the current period. (D) on the other hand says the assumption should have been based on the actual occurrence which the author doesn't talk about.
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Jul 2018, 08:55
goforgmat wrote:
Aditi23 wrote:
Please help me understand difference b/w options A and D?
(A)Author's assumption is based on "plausible suppositions" rather than "contemporary evidence". (D)The author assumption makes no distinction between "probable occurrence" and "actual occurrence". How is "not giving actual occurrence" diff. from "not having actual evidence"??
If you see (A) says the assumption should be made on contemporary evidence i.e., evidence from the current period. (D) on the other hand says the assumption should have been based on the actual occurrence which the author doesn't talk about.
(A) is wrong for that reason.Hope its clear.
As per google "contemporary" is an adjective. Meaning : 1.living or occurring at the same time. 2. belonging to or occurring in the present. Example: "the event was recorded by a contemporary historian" Accordingly, A states "Author's assumption is based on plausible suppositions rather than evidences of past (when the event occured) time." Is my understand for use of "contemporary" incorrect. Please Help.
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d
[#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Aug 2018, 18:12
Bunuel wrote:
A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.
Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?
(A)It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence.
(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.
(C)Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational.
(D)The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence.
(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event.
How can we eliminate option B. As per my understanding there is no clear cut relation mentioned for cause and effect. So, if someone argues on the point, then the conclusion falls apart.
gmatclubot
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d &nbs
[#permalink]
10 Aug 2018, 18:12
close
32% (01:41) correct 
